MURALIDHARA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent-successful candidate has filed this I a. To reject the election petition, by which his election as m. l. a. is challenged by a voter alleging corrupt practice. The petition is filed along with the written statement, ( 2 ) THE grounds on which the rejection is sought necessitates reference to the allegations in the election petition and defences taken. Relevant facts, which have given rise to this challenge are; for the 90 varthur assembly constituency elections were held on 24th november, 1989. The relevant details are: Total No. of Electors: 2,56,119 Valid votes polled: 1,44,182 Votes rejected: 6,495 Votes polled by R-1 (successful candidate Cong-I) 69,586 Votes polled by R-2 Janata Dal: 62,357 ( 3 ) IN addition, there were 14 other candidates; votes polled by them is not of much significance. Respondent-1 was declared elected on 27th november, 1989. The success of first respondent is challenged on the ground that he has committed corrupt practice, which consist of following categories:-"corrupt practice of bribery:i) that he committed corrupt practice of bribery, coming within the purview of Section 123 (1)of the Act, 43/1951, the particulars of such corrupt practices are stated hereunder;ii) he also committed corrupt practices of undue influence as defined under sub-section (2) of Section 123;iii) publication of false statement in relation to the personal character and conduct of the janata dal candidate as defined in sub-section (4) of Section 123;iv) he also committed corrupt practice of obtaining or procuring the assistance of gazetted officers for furtherance of the prospects of his election. Illegality in violating the rules in conducting the election. In that, the third respondent-returning officer, changed the location of the polling booths and the voters attached to them after the process of election had been set in motion without notice. " ( 4 ) THE first respondent was a party candidate of Indian national congress, of which Sri Rajiv Gandhi was the president. At the relevant time, he was also the prime minister of the country. It is alleged that as congress president, rajiv gandhi furnished propaganda material by way of publication of news paper advertisements to all the party candidates soliciting votes. In addition, as president, he held out promises of huge financial help to the electorate on behalf of congress candidate. At the relevant time, he was also the prime minister of the country. It is alleged that as congress president, rajiv gandhi furnished propaganda material by way of publication of news paper advertisements to all the party candidates soliciting votes. In addition, as president, he held out promises of huge financial help to the electorate on behalf of congress candidate. The details of the "financial help" are elaborated thus:"on 19th november, 1989, just five days before the actual date of poll, the prime minister and congress-i president rajiv gandhi, announced a Rs. 5,000/- crores scheme called "the indira mabila yojana" for the betterment of women. The announcement came on mrs. Indira gandhi's birth anniversary, just five days before the elections on 24-11-1989 in varthur assembly constituency. He had announced the major object of yojana would be to give financial assistance to the women for their betterment this announcement of "indira manila yojana" was widely published in all the national news papers and also regional language daily and weekly papers throughout the country. Wide publicity was given to this announcement in kannada papers in Karnataka and more particularly in varthur assembly constituency, where largely circulated kannada daily paper 'fraja'vani', 'kannada prabha' are read. The first respondent and his election agents, canvassing agents and other workers with his consent took full advantage of the above said announcement and canvassed in varthur assembly constituency and broadcast over loudspeakers and public platforms on all the days from 19th that women voters will be given Rs. 5,000/- each under indira mahila yojana, if women voters exercised their votes in favour of the first respondent-congress-i candidate, as announced by the prime minister of the congress-i. The petitioner submits that this announcement on the eve of election by the congress president rajiv gandhi, amounts to corrupt practice of bribery, committed by the first respondent himself. " ( 5 ) THE second event which is alleged pertains to village tanisandra, where there are 30,000 voters in the slum area. These voters had not been given pattas or allotment Order, in respect of sites on which they had built their houses and further they had not been given ration cards. " ( 5 ) THE second event which is alleged pertains to village tanisandra, where there are 30,000 voters in the slum area. These voters had not been given pattas or allotment Order, in respect of sites on which they had built their houses and further they had not been given ration cards. The allegation is elaborated thus:"the first respondent just on the eve of the elections promised the voters and the ramakrishna hegde nagar slum area that he would get them ration cards in consideration of their exercising their franchise in his favour. He himself got prepared ration cards in the names of the heads of the families of the voters and arranged for distribution of the said ration cards by Sri K. Rehman Khan, a congress-I member of the legislative council, at a public function held on 20-10-1989 under his presidentship. At the said meeting a few ration cards were distributed and the rest were kept with the first respondent. He also arranged to unveil a plaque renaming "ramakrishna hegde nagar" as "rajiv gandhi nagar" and inauguration of free reading room on the said occasion. Afterwards during the election campaign, he began to distribute them to the voters, through his agents Sri L. Muniswamy and B. Balaji Singh. Coming to know of this offer of bribe to the voters on 16-11-1989, just on the eve of ensuing elections, one of the voters by name vijaya kumar filed complaint to the chief electoral officer in Karnataka, election commission of India and other authorities, requesting that this distribution of ration cards should not be permitted to take place as it would offend the electoral law. But, no action was taken. The function did take place and ration cards were distributed even without the name of the ration card holders at the place provided for it. The petitioner submits that the distribution of ration cards by the first respondent is a clear corrupt practice of bribery within the meaning of Section 123 (1) of r. p, act 43 of 1951. The petitioner further submits that the first respondent got the name of the ramakrishna hegde nagar changed to rajiv gandhi nagar, holding out that he would regularise the unauthorised occupation of the sites by the slum dwellers and also make it appear that the benefits of regularisation would be by congress-I party of which, Rajiv Gandhi was its president. The petitioner further submits that the first respondent got the name of the ramakrishna hegde nagar changed to rajiv gandhi nagar, holding out that he would regularise the unauthorised occupation of the sites by the slum dwellers and also make it appear that the benefits of regularisation would be by congress-I party of which, Rajiv Gandhi was its president. " ( 6 ) PETITIONER thereafter refers to a function arranged by the government of Karnataka. The date, time and place is not forthcoming in the petition and the invitation card is not produced along with the election petition. The allegation reads thus:'the invitation is said to have issued by the deputy commissioner, Bangalore urban district, Bangalore and ex-officio chairman, district library authority and also the chief librarian, district central library, Bangalore and the rajiv gandhi kshemabhivrudi sangria. It is significant to note that the name plaque of RAJIV Gandhi Nagar and the inauguration of the library was made by Sri Kotilinganagouda, La. s. , deputy commissioner, Bangalore urban district, Bangalore, Sri T. Rajanna, under secretary to Government, Karnataka government secretariat, Sri Padmanabha Rao, chief librarian, Sri Srivara, Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore sub-division, Bangalore, Sri B. Nagaraj, Tahsildar, Bangalore south taluk, Bangalore and Sri K. Basavaiah, block development officer, Bangalore south taluk, and Sri M. Narayanappa, executive engineer, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore, were invited as chief guests and took part in the function. There was no doubt that this meeting bad been "arranged by the first respondent" in furtherance of the prospectus of his election and the gazetted officers of the government of Karnataka, named. Above, "were present and participated in the said function". The electorate were thereby made to believe that their unauthorised occupation of the sites would be regularised and that they would be rewarded richly by voting in favour of the first respondent at the ensuing elections. The whole object of the first respondent was to influence the voters by corrupt means to vote in his favour. By taking the, assistance of the above named gazetted officers of the government of Karnataka, who, even if inadvertently, participated in the function and assisted the first respondent and thereby the first respondent committed corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (7) of r. p. act 43/1951. By taking the, assistance of the above named gazetted officers of the government of Karnataka, who, even if inadvertently, participated in the function and assisted the first respondent and thereby the first respondent committed corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (7) of r. p. act 43/1951. " ( 7 ) IT is alleged that the first respondent has indulged in large scale bribery, in that, on 23-11-1989, there was distribution of liquor. The said incident, as narrated, reads thus:'the petitioner further submits that the first respondent indulged in large scale bribery in distributing liquor on the previous night of the date of polling, i. e. , on 23-11-1989. A fleet of cars had been engaged by the first respondent to distribute liquor to the voters on 23-11-1989. At about 5. 30 p. m. a car with congress flag hoisted on its hood bearing registration No. Ckn 7733 with full; of liquor bottles was engaged in distributing the liquor at k. r. puram. One of the voters gave information of distribution of liquors to the press correspondents who immediately rushed to the spot. The press photographers came to the spot and took photographs of the car and published in the news item the next day. A complaint was also given to the police. The police seized the car and drew up mahazar and submitted F. I. R. to the jurisdictional court and the accused were produced before the magistrate on that very night. All the persons found in the car were the active workers, supporters and agents of the first respondent" ( 8 ) THE allegation of "undue influence" is inferred from the advertisements in the national papers, in english as well as other regional languages soliciting votes for congress-i candidates. All the persons found in the car were the active workers, supporters and agents of the first respondent" ( 8 ) THE allegation of "undue influence" is inferred from the advertisements in the national papers, in english as well as other regional languages soliciting votes for congress-i candidates. These advertisements were published by the general secretary (in-charge of publicity), A. I. C. C. the advertisements in the news papers are produced as annexures a1 to f. Annexure Name of News Paper Date of publication 'a-F Deccan Herald (English) 3-11-1989 'b' do 9-11-1989 'c' do 18-11-1989 'd' Kannada Prabha (Kannada) 12-11-1989 'e' Deccan Herald (English) 16-11-1989 'e-I' Kannada Prabha (Kannada) 19-11-1989 'f' Prajavani (Kannada) 15-11-1989 ( 9 ) BROADLY stated contents in annexures a-i to e deal with united India, providing strongs table government, past achievements of congress, establishment of panchayati raj, 30% seats reservation for women, reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, strengthening democracy, fight against terrorism, inequality, injustice and religious intolerance, caste antagonism, sectarian approaches. These advertisements, couched as they are on ideologies and promises, do not deal with any particular candidate. It speaks for the congress-I as a political party with its ambition to come to power. Annexure e-1, while repeating the above, sarcastically deals with "unity of opposition" parties. It reads:"c. P. I, against C. P. M. C. P. M. against B. J. P. B. J. P. against C. P. I. chandrashekhar against hegde hegde against subramanyam swami subramanyam swami against v. p. singh v. p. singh against chandrashekhar chandrashekhar against ajit singh ajit singh against devilal devilal against all opposition against opposition against opposition"annexure 'f' deals with the slogan of janata dal which says "greatness to nation" and "dignity or respect for people". In the words of the petitioner, it is explained thus:"though the name of the second respondent had not been mentioned, the clear implication is that the janata dal candidate was a brasta, land grabber, a liquor king, capitation fee exploiter". the implication attributed is:"according to the advertisements, the janata dal candidates were all dishonest and corrupt and therefore, unworthy of being elected. This is subtle attempt on the part of the first respondent to assassinate the character of the second respondent by false statement without naming him as such. But, the innuendo is unmistakable. the implication attributed is:"according to the advertisements, the janata dal candidates were all dishonest and corrupt and therefore, unworthy of being elected. This is subtle attempt on the part of the first respondent to assassinate the character of the second respondent by false statement without naming him as such. But, the innuendo is unmistakable. The first respondent has therefore, committed the corrupt practice of publishing false statement of facts against persona1 character of the second respondent which the first respondent did not believe to be true". ( 10 ) THE last ground is regarding violation of election rules; it is contended that the location of 53 polling stations, covering 40,000 (forty thousand) voters was changed after the process of election was set in. It is alleged that as a consequence, only 56% of the electorate exercised their franchise, which is far below than franchise"rate in 1983 and 1985 election which was nearly 65%. This comparative low percentage has materially affected election. ( 11 ) ON the above grounds it is alleged that the election of first respondent is vitiated by corrupt practice and is in violation of election rules. ( 12 ) THE first respondent has denied these allegations. It is specifically contended that allegations are not supported by particulars and material facts, which is a mandatory requirement while admitting that he was a congress (t) candidate, the other allegations are denied. It is denied that rajiv gandhi, as president of congress had held out promises and financial help to the electorate. It is contended that "indira mahila yojana" was announced by rajiv gandhi, as prime minister of the country and not as president the scheme was aimed at the betterment of women's life in the country and was announced on 19th november, 1989, as it was indira gandhi's birthday. That it was five days prior to election date was an accidenta1 coincidence and was not a move to influence the electorate. The scheme was continued by the successor govenunent. It is denied that the first respondent or his election agent, or other workers, canvassing agents took advantage of this announcement and canvassed for voting. Here again it is asserted that the allegation does not furnish the details like place, time, persons and mode of publicity. ( 13 ) THE allegation of "bribery" is denied. It is denied that the first respondent or his election agent, or other workers, canvassing agents took advantage of this announcement and canvassed for voting. Here again it is asserted that the allegation does not furnish the details like place, time, persons and mode of publicity. ( 13 ) THE allegation of "bribery" is denied. It is contended that rajiv gandhi was neither his agent nor election agent and the first respondent had not consented for all his actions in this regard. The alleged complaint to election commission is denied. ( 14 ) THE allegation that in tanisandra there were 30,000 voters who were slumd wellers is denied. The alleged promise to regularise their unauthorised occupation, grant of patta, and distribution of ration cards is denied. It is contended that ration cards are issued by the concerned government authorities. The allegation of implicating l. Muniswamy and b. Balaji singh is characterised as false and fabricated. It is stated that first respondent does not know these persons. The alleged complaint by vijaya kumar is denied and it is contended that the allegation is bald and particulars are not provided (it is admitted that copy of the said complaint is not filed with the election petition ). ( 15 ) THE change of name from ramakrishna hegde nagar to rajiv gandhi nagaris denied. It is stated that renaming ceremony, inauguration of free reading room, distribution of ration cards were all organised by the government of Karnataka. The invitation cards were issued by the deputy commissioner who is an ex-officio chairman of district library authority, in collaboration with b. d. o. and executive engineer. ( 16 ) THE incident dated 23-11-1989, seizure of car No. Ckn 7733 with bottles of liquor is denied. It is stated that first respondent had nothing to do with the car, the occupants and the liquor. They were not connected with him. Here again it is stated that the allegation does not furnish particulars with reference to the car and the occupants. ( 17 ) THE first respondent denied the allegation of undue influence. It is stated that first respondent had nothing to do with the car, the occupants and the liquor. They were not connected with him. Here again it is stated that the allegation does not furnish particulars with reference to the car and the occupants. ( 17 ) THE first respondent denied the allegation of undue influence. It is asserted that the advertisements were not issued with his consent, evenotherwise it is stated:"it is wholly incorrect and beyond comprehension as to how the cartoons and figures published were designed to "hit the reader between the eyes and create a sense of disquiet and distress and warn the voters not to fall into the hands of the opposition especially the "janata dal". The first respondent submits that no reasonable person would feel the feelings described above on seeing the advertisements. " ( 18 ) IT is vehemently denied that rajiv gandhi converted media campaign to highlight the issue. The allegation is characterised as "ridiculous and irrelevant". It is stated that RAJ iv gandhi was not the supreme election agent. It is stated that political party which sponsored the candidate cannot be his agent. In this context it is stated:"the publications/advertisements given by the party, its president or kpcc (i) president cannot be attributed to this respondent as having been issued by him or at his instance or consent. While this respondent is a member of the party and stands by it, the actions of the party must be treated separately from the individua1 members. The publication referred in para 19 of the petition did not make any allegations that the 2nd respondent was dishonest, corrupt and that he was unworthy of being elected. " ( 19 ) THE allegation that rules have been violated is denied and it is said that it is not demonstrated as to how it has materially affected the result of the returned candidate. While disowning his role in the change of booth, it is stated that no change is made, in contravention of rules. ( 20 ) THE third respondent-returning officer has filed a separate written statement regarding the change of polling station, his reply reads thus:"the list of polling stations was prepared as per the direction issued by the chief electoral officer, Bangalore in consultation with the political parties in the constituency. ( 20 ) THE third respondent-returning officer has filed a separate written statement regarding the change of polling station, his reply reads thus:"the list of polling stations was prepared as per the direction issued by the chief electoral officer, Bangalore in consultation with the political parties in the constituency. Thereafter, the said list of polling stations was finalised after approva1 of the election commission of India. The deputy commissioner and district election officer, Bangalore district published the list of polling stations on 5-11-1989 as per Section 25 of the representation of the People Act, 1951. The polling stations list was not changed or modified after final publication of the list of polling stations. No political party or any candidate has questioned that list. The allegation that the third respondent-returning officer changed the location of polling booths and the voters attached to that after the process of election had set in motion without notice is not true. Since no change has been made after the final publication of polling station, the question of causing an inconvenience to the voters does not arise. " ( 21 ) THE filing of complaint by vijaya kumar is denied and it is stated that "nocomplaint" is given to the returning officer and returning officer is unaware of any such complaint". ( 22 ) ON the pleadings, following issues were framed on 5th july, 1991:-"1. Does the petitioner prove that he is an elector in varthur assembly constituency and has locus standi to file this election petition?2. Whether the petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties?3. Whether the election petition or any plea thereof is liable to be dismissed a to struck off on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and does not set forth full particulars as required by law?4. Whether the returned candidate, his agent or authorised agent or at his instance promised Rs. 5,000/- to each of the woman voter who votes for congress "i"?5. Whether the petitioner proves that the announcement by the prime minister of India regarding indira mahila yojana was intended to attract the voters to cast votes in favour of the candidate sponsored by congress "i"?6. Whether the petitioner proves that the first respondent prepared ration cards and got them distributed through k. Rehman khan at a public function held on 20th october, 1989?7. Whether the petitioner proves that the first respondent prepared ration cards and got them distributed through k. Rehman khan at a public function held on 20th october, 1989?7. Whether the petitioner proves that the slum dwellers of ramakrishna hegde nagar which was renamed as rajiv gandhi nagar were given ration ards on the eve of the election?8. Does the petitioner prove that l. Muniswamy and balaji singh are election agents of firstrespondent who distributed the ration cards intending to attract votes from the voters?9. Whether the petitioner proves that late rajiv gandhi acted as an elected agent of the first respondenund exerted undue influence on the voters by permitting publication of the advertisements as per annexures a, b, c, d, e, el and f annexed to the election petition?10. Whether the petitioner proves that the authorities changed the polling booths in 53 polling stations after the publication of the calendar of events and has this materially affected the result of the election?11. Does the petitioner prove that the president of the Karnataka pradesh congress committee was the principa1 election agent of the first respondent?". ( 23 ) ISSUE No. 3 was heard as preliminary issue, as sought by the successful candidate in his la. Filed along with written statement Mr. Ramaswamy iyengar, the learned counsel for the returned candidate contended that admittedly none of the allegations are directly attributed to the returned candidate. The actions of rajiv gandhi, as prime minister of the country cannot be linked with elections; similarly the actions of the state government authorities, in matters which they are obliged to do cannot be treated as actions of the returned candidate or done with his consent. Neither prime minister rajiv gandhi nor the officials of the state government are his agents or election agents. He submitted that the allegations of so-called "bribery", "undue influence" are vague and baseless. They lack the necessary particulars and material facts to implicate the returned candidate. He submitted that the entire allegation of 'corrupt practice is based on surmises and conjectures. These allegations are not based on any documents and documents filed with the election petition are irrelevant and have no bearing either with the 'bribery' or 'undue influence'. The advertisements and pamphlets are issued by the secretary of a. i. c. c. in the interest of the party and they do not refer to any particular candidate. These allegations are not based on any documents and documents filed with the election petition are irrelevant and have no bearing either with the 'bribery' or 'undue influence'. The advertisements and pamphlets are issued by the secretary of a. i. c. c. in the interest of the party and they do not refer to any particular candidate. There is nothing in these advertisements which attract the Provisions of Section 123 (4) of the representation of the People Act, 1951. None of them, even remotely relates to persona1 character: or conduct of any candidate or to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following decisions:i) AIR 1987 SC 1577 ii) AIR 1969 SC 1201 iii) AIR 1986 SC 1253iv) AIR 1972 SC 515 v)ilr 1989 (2) kanaataka 1081. ( 24 ) HE submitted that the alleged violation of rules is imaginary; indeed there is no violation at all. In this context he drew sustenance from the reply filed by the third respondent. He further added that it is not pleaded as to how it has materially affected the result of the returned candidate. Merely because the percentage of voting is less, it cannot be attributed to change of polling stations. He submitted the ground of attack, apart from being imaginary, is not based on concrete and relevant facts. The petitioner, according to the counsel, should have furnished the number of voters in the 1983 and 1985 elections, besides furnishing the number of polling stations then in existence and votes polled in each polling station. Difference in the percentage cannot be attributed to the change of polling booths; it may be for several other reasons. In the absence of plea as to materially affecting the result of returned candidate, with the particular facts and material details the challenge is without substance. ( 25 ) MR. K. Chanbasappa, senior advocate, in his reply submitted that each of the ground of challenge is fully supported by material facts and relevant particulars. He stated rajiv gandhi's announcement of 'indira mahila yojana' was intended to attract women voters, hence it was bribery, particularly because the time chosen was a couple of days before elections. Though rajiv gandhi occupied dua1 capacities, the illiterate masses and women did notpossess the capacity of discriminating these two different roles. He stated rajiv gandhi's announcement of 'indira mahila yojana' was intended to attract women voters, hence it was bribery, particularly because the time chosen was a couple of days before elections. Though rajiv gandhi occupied dua1 capacities, the illiterate masses and women did notpossess the capacity of discriminating these two different roles. For the masses what mattered was rajiv gandhi's promise and not in what capacity it was announced. He stressed announcement from such a great person, in authority, would tilt the votes and it would influence the masses in casting their votes. He submitted the allegation of distribution of ration cards is not vague and all necessary facts and particulars are found in the petition. Whether the allegations are substantiated or not is a matter of proof but it cannot be said that it does not disclose cause of action. ( 26 ) HE submitted that political party or organisation which sponsors the candida turebe comes the 'agent' of the candidate and all actions done by the workers of the party or organisations are attributable to the contesting candidate. Therefore the advertisements and publications at Annexure a1 to f should be treated as having been done by first respondent's agent, and with his consent. In this context he relied on the following decisions in election law reports: vol. 7 page 457 vol. 7 page 100 krishnoji bhimrao v s. s. more vol. 9 page 467 niyalchand virchand v vithal bhai rachod bhai vol. 24 page 92 ramanbhai asha ( 27 ) LEARNED counsel also relied on the following passage in powers and duties and liability of election agent by parker at page 332:"the doctrines of election agency are much wider than those of common law agency, and evidence which would be quite inadequate to establish agency at common law, has often been held sufficient in election cases to make a candidate responsible for acts committed by other persons. Election agency may, like agency common at law, be created either (1) by the express appointment or (2) by ratification and adoption. No precise definition can be laid down as to what constitutes election agency (bewdley, 10'm and h. 17; ace bridgwater, ib 115; great yarmouth, 5 ib. 178), various attempted definitions have been given, but none has been entirely successful (wigan, 4 ib. No precise definition can be laid down as to what constitutes election agency (bewdley, 10'm and h. 17; ace bridgwater, ib 115; great yarmouth, 5 ib. 178), various attempted definitions have been given, but none has been entirely successful (wigan, 4 ib. 10); and judges have declined to lay down any precisfe definition on the ground that it would be certain to be evaded (wakefield, 2 ib. 103; ace. Galway borough, 2 ib. 199 ). The question is rather one of facts than of rules, it is a mixed question of law and fact, though very much a question of fact (evesham, 3 ib. 193), and more a matter of inference from facts than anything capable of being expressed in positive law (wigan, 4 ib. 10 ). Each case stands upon its own ground (ib), and depends upon its own peculiar circumstances; no one yet has been able to go further than to say as to some cases enough has been established, as to others enough has not been established (bridgwater, 1 ib. 115 ). It is not necessary, in order to prove agency, to show that the person was actually appointed by the candidate (harwich, 3 o'm. And h. 70); it is sufficient to show the conduct or connection of the parties, the recognition by the candidate of the acts of the person alleged to be an agent, or the absence of any disavowal of such acts proved to establish agency may each, taken singly, be insufficient, and yet, taken as a whole, may be held to prove agency conclusively. Where the agency cannot be distinctly proved, it may be inferred or implied from the acts of the candidate, and from other facts and circumstances (harwich, 30'm and h. 69; wigan, 4 ib. 10; west bromwich, 6 ib. 277 ). " ( 28 ) HE maintained that an election petition can be dismissed, if and only if, it does not comply with the mandatory Provisions in sections 81 and 82 of the representation of the People Act as provided in Section 86 (1) of that act. It is impermissible to invent any other ground and seek dismissal. According to the learned counsel, Section 87, r. p. act cannot be so interpreted as to substitute or add a new ground for dismissal of the election petition. It is impermissible to invent any other ground and seek dismissal. According to the learned counsel, Section 87, r. p. act cannot be so interpreted as to substitute or add a new ground for dismissal of the election petition. Elaborating the arguments, the counsel stated that the words "subject to the Provisions of the act and of any rules" would indicate that 'dismissal of election petition' is excluded from the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code, otherwise these words would be redundant. He stated that if that was the intention, the parliament, would have added some more grounds to Section 86 (1) of the r. p. act. According to learned counsel, procedure in C. P. C. is intended to achieve the object and grant relief. Procedura1 law, as distinct from substantive law, has to be liberally construed and cannot be resorted to for negativing a relief. He invited attention to sub-section (5) of Section 86, which reads as extracted below. According to learned counsel, this provision is similar to order 6, Rule 17, c. p. c. , therefore if the allegation lacks in any particulars, it could be amended and hence non-mentioning of certain details cannot be countenanced as fata1 to the petition. ( 29 ) TO what extent these Provisions are similar is a matter for consideration. ( 30 ) THE learned counsel contended that statements in Annexure 'f' advertisement in prajavani dated 15th november, 1989 condemns the slogans of 'janata dal' and criticises its policy which is patently false, therefore is a corrupt practice under sub-section (4) of Section 123, r. p. act. He also submitted that this is an interference with free exercise of franchise. Counsel maintained that, allegations being serious, the petition cannot be dismissed on a technical ground by resorting to order 7, rulell, C. P. C. ( 31 ) MR. Ramaswarny iyengar, in his reply, while reiterating his contentions, maintained that allegations in Annexure 'f' do not amount to corrupt practice. The actions of prime minister or officials of state government cannot be attributed to the returned candidate as they are not his agents. With vehemence, he submitted that sub-section (4) of Section 123 deals with the "candidate" or 'candidature'. Ramaswarny iyengar, in his reply, while reiterating his contentions, maintained that allegations in Annexure 'f' do not amount to corrupt practice. The actions of prime minister or officials of state government cannot be attributed to the returned candidate as they are not his agents. With vehemence, he submitted that sub-section (4) of Section 123 deals with the "candidate" or 'candidature'. In exhibit 'f' there is no mention of any candidate or candidature, therefore criticism of political party's 'slogan' in Annexure 'f' does not attract the Provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 123, r. p, act. ( 32 ) THE riva1 contentions give rise to the following questions:-i) whether i. a. i filed by the returned candidate to reject the petition is maintainable in the absence of specific provision in the r. p. act?ii) whether the allegations of bribery and undue influence are vague and ambiguous lacking in particulars and material facts, so as to entail rejection of the election petition?iii) whether the publication in Annexure 'f' prajavani dated 15th november, 1989, per se, constitutes "corrupt practice" in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the r. p. act?iv) whether the returned candidate has procured the assistance of government officials to further the prospects of his election, in that, he arranged the function and got distributed ration cards? Whether in this allegation, sufficient particulars to appreciate the role of the returned candidate is furnished and whether the allegation is lacking in material particulars and facts?v) whether the allegation of violation of election rules i. e. , change of polling stations, without pleading as to how it has materially affected the result fact remains, as on today, no such application seeking amendment is filed. sub-section (5) of Section 86 (1) of representation of the People Act order 6, Rule 17, CPC (5) high court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. 17. 17. Amendment of pleadings- the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the rea1 questions in controversy between the parties. Of returned candidate can be considered and petitioner be permitted to adduce evidence in that regard? ( 33 ) POINT No. I:-the question regarding maintainability of this i. a. for rejecting the petition, on the ground it does not contain the material particulars and facts, should not detain me for long since it is fully covered by the pronouncements of Supreme Court in azher hussain v rajiv gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253. In c. Kannan v returning officer, reported in ILR 1989 (2) kant 1081, similar contention was raised. Mr. Justice bopanna, dealt with the aspect, exhaustively and after referring to several decisions, held thus:"by this statement of law, it is possible to come to a definite conclusion that the power under Section 86 of the act could be exercised by this court even in cases where there is non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 83 (1) and (2) of the act. "i respectfully agree with this conclusion. Therefore I hold that i. a. I is maintainable; contention to the contrary is rejected. ( 34 ) POINT No. ii:-though in the points framed 'bribery' and "undue influence" are mentioned, I propose to dea1 with them separately, the ingredients and tests to be applied to each one of them is distinct and independent. "i respectfully agree with this conclusion. Therefore I hold that i. a. I is maintainable; contention to the contrary is rejected. ( 34 ) POINT No. ii:-though in the points framed 'bribery' and "undue influence" are mentioned, I propose to dea1 with them separately, the ingredients and tests to be applied to each one of them is distinct and independent. (i) bribery:- Section 123 (1) of the representation of the People Act defines the word thus: (1) "bribery", that is to say- (a) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to- (i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting; (b) the receipt of, or arrangement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or reward (a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being a candidate; or (b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature. Explanation. for the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all form of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bonafide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in Section 78. " ( 35 ) ANALYSING the definition, the ingredients of 'bribery', for the purposes of this act are:-"1) any gift, or promise of any gratification by the candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent;2) to include an elector to vote or refrain from voting. " ( 35 ) ANALYSING the definition, the ingredients of 'bribery', for the purposes of this act are:-"1) any gift, or promise of any gratification by the candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent;2) to include an elector to vote or refrain from voting. Clauses (a), b (i) and b (ii) of sub-section 'a' of Section 123 (1) are not relevant, for the facts alleged in this case. Similarly clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section 'b' of Section 123 (1) of the act are not relevant. The allegation of bribery consists of the following:-i) announcement by rajiv gandhi of "indira manila yojana", scheme of Rs. 5,000 crores for the betterment of women in the country. ii) the returned candidate, his election agent, canvassing agents and other workers with his consent, broadcast over loudspeakers and public platforms that women voters wilt be given Rs. 5,000/- each under indira mahila yojana if women voters exercised their votes in favour of the first respondent, returned candidate, as announced by the prime minister of congress i. (emphasis supplied) ( 36 ) SO far as the announcement of the scheme for the women of the entire country by rajiv gandhi as prime minister is concerned, though the time chosen for announcement is on the eve of election, it cannot be a "promise"by the candidate or his agent or election agent; further, being a supreme head of the executive, his announcement needed nobody's "consent". Any representation or announcement by such a constitutiona1 authority, in the larger interests of women of the entire nation can only be "decision" of the government in power. Like all other executive decisions, it is the decision of the cabinet and it has to be presumed until proved otherwise that constitutionally it is valid and is binding on the 'government' in power and the successor governments. Further, such declaration or announcement of a betterment scheme is not an "inducement" which is an essential element to attract the mischief of the word "bribery". The "object" of the scheme being the betterment of women in the country, it cannot be narrowed down to attract 'votes', much less in favour of or against any candidate at the election in a particular constituency. It would be unbelievable that scheme costing Rs. 5,000 crores covering a Section of humanity would be made by a party chief. The "object" of the scheme being the betterment of women in the country, it cannot be narrowed down to attract 'votes', much less in favour of or against any candidate at the election in a particular constituency. It would be unbelievable that scheme costing Rs. 5,000 crores covering a Section of humanity would be made by a party chief. With the admitted illiteracy and acknowledged ignorance of vast Section of women population, the Indian woman will not be carried away by a promise of this type. To treat that physiologically she has not been endowed with the menta1 faculty or brain power to discriminate would be a 'slur' on this nation. Having given her the right to exercise vote and contest election, it would be insulting to say that she would be induced by such promises whatever may his position in the political party. Therefore the contention that rajiv gandhi's announcement of 'indira mahila yojana' was a promise calculated to induce the women voters has to be rejected. Ii) the second part of this allegation is that taking advantage of rajiv gandhi's announcement, the returned candidate, his agents and workers broadcast over loudspeakers and public platforms that women voters would be given Rs. 5,000/- each, under the above if they voted in favour of first respondent. ( 37 ) THE allegation necessarily implies that agents and workers of the first respondent publicly announced that every woman voter would be paid Rs. 5. 000/- if she casts her vote in favour of first respondent the names of agents and party workers and the localities or places where such announcements "promise" were made are not given. This was necessary to avoid concocting of evidence and talcing the returned candidate by surprise. In addition, the use of loudspeakers requires the challenger to give further details as regards the 'agency' which provided these equipments. Further, 'platforms' in this context implies an organised programme arranged or conducted with the help and co-operation of several persons. The use of different places, to serve as a platform for propaganda requires the details to be stated. For instance if a 'school playground* or 'temple maidan' or open space belonging to local authority is used as a platform it was incumbent on the petitioner to plead the same, so that the respondent is provided with opportunity to admit or deny the allegation. For instance if a 'school playground* or 'temple maidan' or open space belonging to local authority is used as a platform it was incumbent on the petitioner to plead the same, so that the respondent is provided with opportunity to admit or deny the allegation. Since the "promise" is said to have been made by the agents and party workers, it was necessary to give the names and addresses of these persons. To organise a public meeting necessarily involves prior announcements, use of electrical power and providing for police 'bandobast', to avoid break down of law and order situation and maintain tranquility and peace. Unless these facts are detailed in the petition, the allegation becomes vague and unverifiable by the respondent. The plea not being specific, in that, it does not furnish the necessary particulars and facts to substantiate the allegation, petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce evidence in that regard. It is the totality of these particulars, facts, events, persons involved and places utilised that crystalises into the cause of action, to become the foundation of the alleged corrupt practice; that is because the alleged "promise" is attributed to the candidate's agents, and workers obviously at different times, in different places and by different persons. ( 38 ) IN this context, yet another allegation is that the president of all India congress-i held out promises of huge financial help to the electorate on behalf of congress-i candidate. Elaborating the contention, it was argued that the party which sponsored the candidate becomes his agent and therefore acts and omissions of the party workers assumes the character of acts and omissions of agents and binds the candidate as they are done with his consent. Reliance, for this proposition, that tbe party which sponsored the candidate became his agent, is placed on juhar singh v bhairon lall, vol. Vii election law reports 457 decided by election tribunal, kotah, wherein it is held thus:- "the fact that the poster was printed and published by the publicity department of the Rajasthan pradesh congress committee does not mitigate respondent No. 1's offence, for the law is that a society publishing posters and putting up a candidate becomes his agent; vide amritsar south (1)". ( 39 ) TO strengthen this contention, tbe counsel sought assistance from the decision in nyalchand virchand v v. r. patel, vol. Ix election law reports 451. ( 39 ) TO strengthen this contention, tbe counsel sought assistance from the decision in nyalchand virchand v v. r. patel, vol. Ix election law reports 451. At page 467, it is held thus:"as stated above, Shri dahyala1 mehta has not been alleged to be the agent of Shri v. r. patel. However, the fact remains that Shri v. r. patel was the official congress candidate who was granted a congress ticket Shri dahyala1 mehta is a leading congress worker of the district and he was appointed by the gujarat prantik congress prachar committee, which gave the ticket to Sri Vithalbhai, as the convener of the banaskantha chutni prachar samiti. This fact was known to Shri vithalbhai as it appears from his deposition. Thus the congress or tbe g. p. c. c. would be in law the agent and Shri dahyala1 the sub-agent of Shri vithalbhai patel. Under the act the effect of the act of the sub-agent would be the same as that of an agent. "seeking reinforcement of this contention, the counsel brought to my notice the decision of the High Court of gujarat in ramanbhai ashabhai patcl v dhabhi ajitkumarfulsinhji and others, vol xxiv election law reports 92, wherein it is held:"anybody who acts in furtherance of the prospects of the candidate's election may be said to be an agent of the candidate concerned, provided he docs so with the consent of the candidate. This consent need not be necessarily an express consent and no written document is necessary. The same may be gathered and implied from the circumstances of the case. An "agent" includes not only a person, who has been specifically engaged by the candidate or his election agent to work for him in the election, but also a person who docs in fact work for him and whose services have been accepted by the candidate. An association of persons or a society or a political party and its prominent members who set up the candidate, sponsor his cause and work to promote his election, may be aptly called the 'agents' of the candidate for election purposes". This aspect assumes importance, if what is announced or declared is a promise to induce the voters to vote or refrain from voting at the election. This aspect assumes importance, if what is announced or declared is a promise to induce the voters to vote or refrain from voting at the election. ( 40 ) EARLIER I have held that the announcement of 'indira mahila yojana' of rajivgandhi as prime minister was a policy decision of the government and it was not a decision of congress-i. But on this allegalion if the "financial assistance" is independent of and apart from 'indira manila yojana', it becomes necessary for the petitioner to give particulars and lay the foundation for proving the same by reliable evidence. The particulars and material facts, which are wanting, would be the time, place, the magnitude of financial assistance and the words and acts which can be treated as promise to induce the voters. As these details which make up the cause of action are not found in the petition, it is unnecessary to examine the contention whether the political parly which sponsors the candidate and its workers or volunteers become his agent. ( 41 ) AS regards the alleged promise which does not make a reference to a particular voter or voters in the constituency, it cannot be said that such a statement would be an inducement to the voters of the constituency to vote in favour of the congress-i candidate. In this regard it would be useful to refer to the decision of this court in d. Puttaswamy gowda v h. d. devegowda, reported in 1989 (3) KAR. L. J. 125. In that case the janata party had published a news item in deccan herald to the effect:". . . . That the janata party would sell rice at Rs. 2/- per k. g. as against the market price of Rs. 5/- to Rs. 10/- per k. g. , to the weaker sections; harijanans and other minorities, and that 10 k. gs. Of rice would be supplied at the said rate every month to each fain il y of the weaker Section and that 2 pairs of sarecs and blouses would be supplied to every woman belonging to weaker Section per year and that two pairs of dhoties and kurtas would be supplied to every man of weaker Section for Rs. 207- and that loans to women enterprenuers would be made available without security and at subsidised rates of interest". 207- and that loans to women enterprenuers would be made available without security and at subsidised rates of interest". ( 42 ) THE learned judge who dealt with the matter has held that this was the public policy or a promise of public action which would be undertaken if the janata party returned to power. The observations of the learned judge are as follows:"therefore even if such a declaration was made by the janata party on the eve of the election, il was only a declaration of the public policy or a promise of public action which would be undertaken by it if it is returned to power. It was not as if such a promise was made only to persons who would vote for the janata party. Such a promise was meant to be for the benefit of the people belonging to the weaker sections and harijan community and other backward communities irrespective of the fact whether they vote for the petitioner or respondent-1 or respondent-2 or the congress party or any other candidate. Therefore it cannot be said to be a promise made only with the object of wooing the electorate. As it is a declaration of public policy or a promise or a public action, which would be undertaken by the janata party if it is returned to power, it will not amount to a corrupt practice or bribery". ( 43 ) THE reasoning adopted by me in holding that indira mahila yojana was in the larger interest of the women population of the entire country and was not aimed at the voters in a particular constituency where the congrcss-i candidate was contesting finds support from the above ruling. Therefore, looked at from any angle, it is not possible to uphold the contention that these announcements amount to a bribery and therefore a corrupt practice as defined in the act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary is rejected. ( 44 ) UNDUE influence:- the second part in point II is the allegation of under influence. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary is rejected. ( 44 ) UNDUE influence:- the second part in point II is the allegation of under influence. The definition of this word is as follows:-"123 (2) undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent with the free exercise of any electoral right: provided that- (a) without prejudice to the generality of the Provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who- (i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or nay person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritua1 censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or electoral within the meaning of this clause: (b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this clause". ( 45 ) SHORTLY stated, interference or attempt to interfere directly or indirectly with the free exercise of the electoral right would constitute 'undue influence'. Further, such interference must be by the candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of candidate. The proviso carves out two circumstances by which 'undue influence' is created by legal fiction. ( 45 ) SHORTLY stated, interference or attempt to interfere directly or indirectly with the free exercise of the electoral right would constitute 'undue influence'. Further, such interference must be by the candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of candidate. The proviso carves out two circumstances by which 'undue influence' is created by legal fiction. In the petition the events that are alleged, to constitute undue influence, are:a) securing of ration cards to the slum dwellers in tanisandra;b) Distribution of ration cards on 20-10-1989, at a public meeting by Sri Rehman Khan, MLC (congrcss-I) under the president of the returned candidate-respondent-1;c) Unveiling a plaque renaming 'ramakrishna hegde nagar' as "rajiv Gandhi Nagar" and inauguration of free reading room;d) Distribution of ration cards to voters by muniswamy and balaji singh on 16-11-1989, who it is alleged are agents,e) Holding out that "he would regularise the unauthorised occupation of sites by the slum dwellers;f) Publication of advertisements, cartoons, paper publications in national and regional language; it is alleged to strike terror and fear in the minds of voters, holding out threat that country would be cut into pieces, their life and liberty were in imminent danger. Casting votes, in favour of opposition would bring reign of terror, violence and anarchy. Further religious beliefs are not safe in the hands of opposition. These paper publications are marked as exhibits a1 to e1, filed along with the petition. ( 46 ) EVENT 'a', 'b' and 'd'- securing ration cards to slum dwellers of tanisamlra. Providing of ration cards, which enables the cardholder to purchase essential commodities at reduced rates, supply of sugar and kerosene oil is a part of the obligatory duty of the 'food and civil supplies' department of the state. The department has framed certain regulatory procedures and entrusted the distribution of these Articles to licensed shopkeepers or fair price shops or depots. The procedure to obtain the ration cards is also regulated. The person desirous of obtaining the card will have to submit the 'application in the prescribed form , furnishing the details regarding the inmates of his house. The department has framed certain regulatory procedures and entrusted the distribution of these Articles to licensed shopkeepers or fair price shops or depots. The procedure to obtain the ration cards is also regulated. The person desirous of obtaining the card will have to submit the 'application in the prescribed form , furnishing the details regarding the inmates of his house. The concerned food inspector or range officer, after verification, will issue the card and mark it to a particular shop, where essential commodities at subsidised or reduced rates are supplied and rationed commodities like kerosene oil, sugar, sojcc and maida (cora flour) are supplied in a fixed quantity. The card holder is required to affix his photograph for purposes of identification. Subsequent increase or reduction in the number of members of family or change of address is required to be notified. The concerned officers of the department have been entrusted with this duty. Such being the procedure, any assurance given to the voters, by any person other than those who are entrusted with this official duty, would be unbelievable. They may act as 'middleman' or 'agent', but they themselves cannot arrange for distribution, as the prescribed forms, cards, allotment to a shop are in the custody and jurisdiction of the department. ( 47 ) IN such matters, the best that an individual can do is to volunteer his services and assist the needy to fill the form and submit it to the concerned authority. The petitioner has not furnished the names of 'voters' in tanisandra, whom 'cards' have been given, nor a 'specimen copy' is filed. As rightly pointed out, the time and place where such "promises" are made is not mentioned in the petition nor the recipient of such card is stated. ( 48 ) THE allegation that "he himself got prepared ration cards" indicates that hehas established a parallel department where 'fake' or 'make believe' ration cards are prepared, by forging the signature of the authority and using an imitating 'seal' of the department. Indeed if these cards contained candidates hand-writing, the 'best proof would have been to name the person who is a cardholder and produce a copy thereof. In the absence of such material particulars, petitioner gets enough scope for cooking up the evidence and plant people to support his allegation. Indeed if these cards contained candidates hand-writing, the 'best proof would have been to name the person who is a cardholder and produce a copy thereof. In the absence of such material particulars, petitioner gets enough scope for cooking up the evidence and plant people to support his allegation. It is admitted that calendar of events was announced on 23rd october, 1989; it is alleged that on 20th october, 1989, i. e, three days before the publication of calendar of events a public function'was held wherein distribution of ration cards was arranged. This event was before the first respondent became a "candidate" as defined in Section 79 (b) of the r. p. act. Obviously he was not duly nominated on 20th october, 1989. Again it is alleged that "afterwards" during the election campaign, ration cards were distributed through l. Muniswamy and balaji singh; this allegation is denied. That apart what was required to be stated was the date, time and place where the so-called ration cards were distributed and also the names of recipients, to identify them as voters in the constituency. ( 49 ) THE alleged complaint of vijaya kumar to the chief electoral officer, about the distribution of ration cards through l. Muniswamy and balaji singh is denied by the third respondent. Petitioner, except stating that such a complaint was filed, has not produced either the copy of the complaint or any postal acknowledgment to show that it has reached the chief e1ectoral officer. It is alleged that function took place and ration cards, without name of the cardholder, at the specified place, were distributed. If the card did not contain the name, it cannot be assumed that it was given to the voter or voters. The allegation would only mean blank ration cards were distributed to all those who attended the function without specifying names, giving liberty to the recipients to insert whomsoever's name they like. Distribution of such blank ration cards to public in genera1 is too vague and even if believed it is not a gift, offer or promise to an elector and does not constitute 'bribery' as defined in the act and it is not a corrupt practice. To prima facie believe such an allegation, petitioner should have produced one such blank ration card, which was distributed, mentioning the name of the person who had received the same. To prima facie believe such an allegation, petitioner should have produced one such blank ration card, which was distributed, mentioning the name of the person who had received the same. ( 50 ) EVENTS 'c' and 'e': it is alleged that the first respondent got the name of ramakrishna hegde nagar changed to rajiv gandhi nagar, holding out that he would regularise the unauthorised occupation of sites by slum dwellers. ( 51 ) IT is not known as to how the name of locality was changed and whether it was so accepted by the people and the authorities concerned. Further, how the change of name, by itself, benefits the voters so as to influence their intention to exercise their franchise is not stated. According to the petitioner, the inhabitants are slum dwellers; if so, how the change of name of the area materially affects their process of voting is not clear. Furthermore, the day, date and time wherein the change of name is announced or effected is not stated in the petition. Prima facie, change of name of the locality, is not a corrupt practice either with reference to the candidate or voters. ( 52 ) THE next allegation is holding out that he (first respondent) would regularise the unauthorised occupation of the sites by slum dwellers. Firstly, all slum areas, if they are notified, they vest in slum clearance board; if not notified they vest in the local authority or state government. The power to regularise the unauthorised construction is vested in the "authority" and not in any person. If all the unauthorised constructions, without any exception, are to be regularised, it would be a matter of public policy and not a matter of confirment of benefit on one or two individuals. Further, such a policy, if implemented, would be to the benefit of all slum dwellers, irrespective of whether they are voters or not. Therefore even if the allegation is believed it would not be a corrupt practice. ( 53 ) THE latter portion of para 11 deals with a meeting, called by the deputy commissioner, ex-officio chairman, district library authority and an organisation called rajiv gandhi kshemabhivrudhi sangha. It is not detailed as to how the first respondent is connected with district library authority or the above organisation. ( 53 ) THE latter portion of para 11 deals with a meeting, called by the deputy commissioner, ex-officio chairman, district library authority and an organisation called rajiv gandhi kshemabhivrudhi sangha. It is not detailed as to how the first respondent is connected with district library authority or the above organisation. The library was inaugurated by the deputy commissioner, and i. a. s. officer; the function was attended by local officers like chief librarian, tahsildar, b. d. o. and executive engineer. The invitation card is not produced along with the election petition. It is alleged that this function was "arranged" by the first respondent. It is not detailed what arrangements had been made and how much is spent by the first respondent. To connect first respondent with this public function, it was necessary to give particulars and material facts to demonstrate his active participation and contribution. Apparently this is the function of the district library authority of which the deputy commissioner is chairman. To say the least, the opening of library and the so-called function is irrelevant from the election 'point of view'. ( 54 ) AGAIN it is alleged that the voters were made to believe that they would be 'rewarded richly' by voting in favour of first respondent. The implication of the words "rewarded richly" js not detailed. What is the kind of reward and who has given the assurance to make the "electorate believe" and at what place and in what words or actions is not mentioned. The announcement of regularisation of unauthorised occupation, even if be true, it would benefit all the unauthorised occupants, whether they are voters or not. It would not constitute a corrupt practice. ( 55 ) THE commission of 'corrupt practice' cannot be inferred on the number of votes polled, by making a comparison of votes in the 1985 election. The fact that second respondent had taken a^ lead of 2,600 votes in tanisandra in 1985, is not a valid ground to conclude that the lead got by first respondent in 1989 election is attributable to corrupt practice. The silting candidate may reduce bis votes, because of his own unpopularity or his own deeds. The test put forward is illogical and is opposed to reason. ( 56 ) YET another incident is the alleged distribution of liquor on the night of 23-11-1989. The silting candidate may reduce bis votes, because of his own unpopularity or his own deeds. The test put forward is illogical and is opposed to reason. ( 56 ) YET another incident is the alleged distribution of liquor on the night of 23-11-1989. The role of first respondent is stated to be:-1) distribution of liquor,2) fleet of cars engaged by 1st respondent;3) persons in the car were active workers, supporters and agents of first respondent. ( 57 ) WHILE it is stated that it was a "fleet of cars" only car No. Ckn 7733 is mentioned as having been seized in k. r. puram. It is not stated whose car it was and in whose name it was registered. It is not clear whether the car seized at 6. 30 a. m. at k. R. Puram was one of the cars in the incident of 23-11-1989. ( 58 ) IT is alleged that "one of the voters" gave information to the press; what is wanting is the name and place of the voter and the name or names of the press correspondents, who rushed to the spot. The alleged photos taken by the press correspondents are not furnished with the election petition, and what is alleged to have been published as news item is also not filed. So much so the name of the news paper is not stated. These details being material facts, it was necessary to mention them in the petition. On such vague allegation, petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce evidence without foundation. In this context it is alleged that a complaint was given to police and F. I. R. was issued. Whether in the complaint and the F. I. R. the name of first respondent or his connection with the accused is mentioned or not is not stated. Neither the complaint nor the copy of F. I. R. is produced. The names of the accused who were produced before the magistrate arc not stated. There is no allegation that they are voters. It is alleged that the inmates of the car were active workers, supporters and agents of first respondent. Without stating who these persons were, it would be difficult to identify them. The names of the accused who were produced before the magistrate arc not stated. There is no allegation that they are voters. It is alleged that the inmates of the car were active workers, supporters and agents of first respondent. Without stating who these persons were, it would be difficult to identify them. Since the allegation is that they were the active workers, supporters and agents of the first respondent, it should be within the knowledge of the petitioner to indicate as to who they were? If petitioner had known them and was able to identify them as first respondent's active workers, supporters and agents, non-furnishing of the details, amounts to deliberate suppression. There is no convincible plea to connect the first respondent with the incident therefore this contention has no substance and it cannot furnish a cause of action to challenge the election. ( 59 ) EVENT 'f': whether the publication of advertisements, cartoons, has the effect of creating a terror and fear in the minds of voters and held out threat to any candidate or voter, as contemplated in clause (a) (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 123? ( 60 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that any "candidate" contesting the election was directly threatened with injury nor is it the case that elector or electors, whose names are included in the voters' list for the constituency are threatened with any injury of the kind mentioned in clause (a) (i) of Section 123 (2) of the r. p. act. Petitioner has not named any such candidate or voter in support of this allegation. Based on the allegations in the petition and contentions urged by Sri K. Chanbasappa, I will consider the contents of Annexures a1 to e1 to find out whether they constitute threat or any injury of any kind. The word "injury" is not defined in r. p. act. The dictionary meaning of this word in new webster's dictionary is as follows:"injuries, harm or damage occasioned, a. wrong received; damage or violation of another's person, property, rights or reputation". ( 61 ) A division bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a venkanna vr, venkata rao, AIR 1957 a. p. 53 made the following observation:"the meaning of the word "injury" as given in oxford dictionary is "wrongful action or treatment, harm or damage". ( 61 ) A division bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a venkanna vr, venkata rao, AIR 1957 a. p. 53 made the following observation:"the meaning of the word "injury" as given in oxford dictionary is "wrongful action or treatment, harm or damage". It couid therefore have relation only to acts of a party which are wrongful and not to legitimate acts of persons who pursue the remedies allowed to them by law". (emphasis supplied) ( 62 ) THE learned counsel drew my attention to the definition 'injury' in Indian Penal Code, which reads thus:"44. "injury". the word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. " (emphasis supplied) ( 63 ) THE word employed in the Section of representation of the People Act has tobe interpreted in its broad sense including social ostracism, ex-communication or expulsion from caste. The counsel contended it has caused injury to the mind of the voters in that, his political faith in janata party and its ideals have been hurt. In other words, the political ideology of the janata party of which he was the ardent follower has been tarnished. This according to the learned counsel is an injury to the mind. The word 'mind has no physical existence in the human body, it only means intellectua1 faculty, memory, recollection and thinking process. As per the definition of Indian pena1 code, any harm "illegally caused to any person" is an injury. That is the reason why the learned judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh have held that "injury" denotes wrongful action, harm or damage and it has no relation to legitimate acts of persons who pursue the remedy allowed to them by law. With respect I adopt this reasoning. Therefore it becomes essential to find out whether the publications in annexures 'a1' to 'e1' are wrongful acts and whether the 'injury' complained of is "illegally caused". In the election canvassing the publishing of slogans and advertisements to attract the attention of voters in genera1 is permissible, so long as it does not transgress the restrictions imposed by the act. Every political party is entitled to highlight its achievements'and make promises. In the election canvassing the publishing of slogans and advertisements to attract the attention of voters in genera1 is permissible, so long as it does not transgress the restrictions imposed by the act. Every political party is entitled to highlight its achievements'and make promises. ( 64 ) IN Annexure 'a1' which is a publication in dcccan herald dated 3-11-1989, the general secretary (in-charge of publicity, aicc) has got published a picture along with certain material under the caption "my heart beats for India"; thereafter a child whose hands and legs are cut off has been depicted. Below this the words read:"and I won't let anyone break it into pieces". the matter below the picture states that India has different languages, different customs, different ways of life and it is a miracle of unity in diversity. It also states that if India is blown to bits, there are persons who can catch the bit and becomes the leader. Ultimately it highlights that for united India, the voters must vote for congress. There is nothing which is provocative either to the contesting candidates or to. The political parties. ( 65 ) SOME what similar in contents is Annexure 'b' wherein a big tree is shown in front of a village and a saw cutting more than half of the tree is depicted. The advertisement draws the attention of the villagers in establishment of panchayatraj, reservation of seats for women, for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, debaring antisocial and crimina1 elements and assuring that congress will fight for the rights of the people and strengthens democracy. In this Annexure also neither the name of the contesting candidate nor the opposite party is mentioned. ( 66 ) ANNEXURE 'c' also to the same effect. In this annexure, a picture of revolveris depicted to indicate the fury of violence. Below the revolver, it is stated thus:"and I won't let anyone turn its streets into streets of fire". it is further staled that fury of violence, rioting and lawlessness may lead the peace loving and law abiding persons into streets of fire. To check the violence, a strong hand is required and this can be provided by the congress-1. With this, an appeal is made to the voters to vote for congress-i. In this Annexure also there is no reference to the contesting candidates nor to the opposite parlies. To check the violence, a strong hand is required and this can be provided by the congress-1. With this, an appeal is made to the voters to vote for congress-i. In this Annexure also there is no reference to the contesting candidates nor to the opposite parlies. ( 67 ) IN Annexure 'd', a picture with broken beads with a bullet in the centre is depicted indicating that religious institutions are be ing utilised for violent activities. Below the picture, it is stated in kannada that "i will not allow various gods places to become battle fields". Below it is stated that the temples are used as forts and people are leaving the country in the context of their castes like hindus, muslims, christians and sikhs. They only see brahmins, takurs, banias and harijanas and they think of yadavas, sings, sharmas, shias and sunnis. They don't consider others as human beings. It is only congress-i which can unite all the religions, castes and creeds, therefore vote for congress. ( 68 ) TO the same effect is the contents in Annexure 'e' wherein a picture of two lions quarrelling for the seat of power is depicted. Below the picture, it is stated:"and I won't let jhagda dais have a party at its cost". to make the appea1 more strong, it is stated that the united party with common ideology, common platform and common concern for the people alone provide a stable government at the centre; it is united for 104 years of service. Like the earlier annexures, there is neither the name of any candidate nor the name of any opposite party is mentioned, ( 69 ) THESE being the documents produced by the petitioner along with the election petition, the short question is whether it constitutes a corrupt practice in the sense that it interferes with the free exercise of the electoral right of the voter. If these annexures are considered severally or cumulatively, neither hurt nor injure anybody's sentiments. Taking advantage of the existing things namely, violence, religious antagonism, linguistic differences and the cult of violence, the party wants to project itself to fight these factors and to give a stable government for the entire country. Therefore it cannot be said that the contents of these documents result in wrongful act or any illegality causing injury as mentioned above. Taking advantage of the existing things namely, violence, religious antagonism, linguistic differences and the cult of violence, the party wants to project itself to fight these factors and to give a stable government for the entire country. Therefore it cannot be said that the contents of these documents result in wrongful act or any illegality causing injury as mentioned above. When the allegations as they stand do not disclose any cause of action to hold that it is a corrupt practice which needs to be established by adducing evidence, the allegation of corrupt practice is rejected. ( 70 ) POINT No. IIIi: referring to the contents in amiexure 'f', it was contended that it constitutes a corrupt practice under sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the representation of the People Act. That sub-section reads thus:" (4) the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election". the ingredients of corrupt practice are as follows: (1)the statement of fact must be false and believed to be false; (2) it must relate to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or candidature; and (3) the statement is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the candidate's election. the law in this context as enunciated by the Supreme Court in ram chand bhatia v hardyal, AIR 1986 SC 717 reads thus:"the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 123 is that the content of the impugned document should relate to the personal character and not to the political character. The law is well settled. Adverse criticism however severe, however undignified, ill mannered, however regrettable it might be, in the interest of purity and decency of public life, in relation to the political views, position, reputation or action of a candidate would not bring it within the mischief of the statute. What is objectionable is a false statement of fact and not a false statement of opinion however unfounded or unjustified. What is objectionable is a false statement of fact and not a false statement of opinion however unfounded or unjustified. "in para 18, their lordships have observed thus:'the electorate at the time of election has to be kept in the forefront of judging whether a publication of the statement has affected the voters. The court has to ascertain whether the statement is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of the candidates in an election. It would be unrealistic to ignore that whnc the appeals are made by the candidate there is an element of partisan feeling and there is extravagance of expression in attacking one another and the court has to consider the effect of the impugned document on the mind of the ordinary voters who read the poster". in sheopai singh v ram pratap, AIR 1965 SC 677 , Justice subba rao, speaking for the bench, made the following observation:"an election is the expression of a popular will. It shall be so conducted that the popular will shall be reflectable on the basis of the policy of the party which the candidate represents and on his merits. That object cannot be achieved unless free don of speech is assured at the election and the merits of a candidate, personal as well as political, are prominently brought to the notice of the voters in the constituency. At the same time il shall not be allowed to degenerate into a vilification campaign aimed at bringing down the personal character or conduct etc. Of the candidates without any basis whatsoever. The sub-section is designed to achieve this dual purpose, namely, freedom of speech and prevention of malicious attack on personal character or conduct etc. Of rivals. The purity of an election is sought to be maintained without affecting the freedom of expression. The sub-section prohibits any statement of fact in relation to personal character or conduct of any candidate, which is not only false but also the candidate making it either believes it to be false or does not believe it to be true. It implies that a statement of fact relating to the personal character or conduct etc. Of a candidate can be made, if it is true. It implies that a statement of fact relating to the personal character or conduct etc. Of a candidate can be made, if it is true. Even if it is false, the candidate making it is protected, unless he makes it believing it to be false or not believing it to be true, that is to say statements which are not true made bona fide are also outside the ambit of the provision. To be within the mischief of sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the act such a statement shall satisfy another test, namely, it shall be a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the candidate against whom it is made. The word "calculated" means designed: it denotes more than mere likelihood and imports a design to affect voters. It connotes a subjective element, though the actual effect of the statement on the electoral mind reflected in the result may afford a basis to ascertain whether the said statement was reasonably calculated to achieve that effect. The emphasis is on the calculated effect, not on the actual result, though the latter proves the former. But what is important to notice is that it is not necessary to establish by positive evidence that the voters, with the knowledge of the contents of the statement, were deflected from voting for the candidate against whom the statement was made. " ( 71 ) KEEPING in view the above enunciation, let me examine the contents of Annexure 'f'. It reads thus: the english translation of the contents of the above is to the effect that janata dal announces greatness to the country and respect to the public. In a question form it states "respect to whom" and answers in the following words:"to scoundrels, land grabbers, liquor kings and to capitation fee looters. "it also states that greatness is claimed in the name of false promises for sites, liquor distributors, telephone tappers. After stating all these, it is stated that these announccments by janata dal are camouflage and deceitful; therefore I get laugh. It appeals to the voters to vote for congress-i to establish a beautiful and stable Karnataka government. It also states that vote for congress-i is a vote for progress. After stating all these, it is stated that these announccments by janata dal are camouflage and deceitful; therefore I get laugh. It appeals to the voters to vote for congress-i to establish a beautiful and stable Karnataka government. It also states that vote for congress-i is a vote for progress. ( 72 ) TESTING the contents with the tests mentioned in the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it is not possible to hold that it amounts to character assassination of any candidate at the election. Indeed the publication does not deal with any personal character or conduct of any candidate, it only criticises or condemns the slogans of the janata dal as a whole. Sub-section (4) of Section 123 is not at all attracted to the contents in Annexure 'f'. Therefore this contention fails and is rejected. ( 73 ) POINT No. Iv:- it is alleged by the petitioner that taking the assistance of the of ficials namely the deputy commissioner, b. d. o. , assistant commissioner, tah- sildar, executive engineer, etc. , A meeting was arranged to enhance the prospects of the election of the first respondent and it was in this meeting that an announcement was made to people that unauthorised occupation of the slum dwellers will be regularised. ( 74 ) I have held that the meeting was arranged by the deputy commissioner who was the ex-officio chairman of the district library committee and there was no material on record to hold that it was arranged by the first respondent. The petitioner except making an allegation, has not given any particulars to demonstrate the "assistance" for the furtherance of the prospects of the 1st respondent's election. It is not stated as to when this meeting was called and no invitation card is produced. Therefore what is the assistance that was procured by the second respondent is not staled. In the absence of the material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practice, it has to be held that the plea does not disclose any cause of action, so as to attract Section 123 (7) of the r. p. Act, hence this contention fails and is rejected. ( 75 ) POINT No. V:- the petitioner has alleged that in 1983 and 1985 the voting was 65% whereas in 1989 it was 56%. ( 75 ) POINT No. V:- the petitioner has alleged that in 1983 and 1985 the voting was 65% whereas in 1989 it was 56%. The petitioner has not stated in his petition as to what was the number of voters in this constituency and how many of them have exercised their votes. Merely because the less percentage have cast their votes, it cannot be said that that is attributable to change of polling booths. Moreover, the third respondent in his reply has clearly stated that the list of polling stations was prepared in accordance with rules and it was finalised after the approva1 of the election commission of India. He has specifically denied that there was any change or modification in the final publication. Prima facie this allegation has no legal basis. Therefore it is rejected. ( 76 ) BEFORE concluding, I must deal yet another aspect namely, whether, in the circumstances, the petitioner would be permitted to amend the petition under sub-section (5) of Section 86 (1) of the r. p. act. In this context Mr. Chanbasappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Provisions of sub-section (5) are similar to order 17, Rule 17, C. P. C. both the Provisions are extracted earlier. Under sub-section (5), it is open to the court to allow the particulars of any corrupt practice amended or amplified. In doing so, the court cannot allow any amendment which will have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not previously alleged in the petition. In the case on hand, I have held that most of the allegations do not constitute corrupt practice at ali. In such a case, allowing the amendment would be an idle formality in the sense that the allegations by themselves do not attract the Provisions of Section 123 of the representation of the People Act. The contention that it is similar to order 6, Rule 17, c. p. c. cannot be accepted. Under order 6, Rule 17, c. p. c, the court is empowered to allow all such amendments that would be necessary for determining the rea1 question in controversy between the parties. It is too wide in its application. Such is not the amendment which could be allowed under sub-section (5) of Section 86 (1) of the r. p. act. Therefore I reject this contention. It is too wide in its application. Such is not the amendment which could be allowed under sub-section (5) of Section 86 (1) of the r. p. act. Therefore I reject this contention. ( 77 ) SINCE I have come to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner do not constitute corrupt practice, this petition is liable to fail. ( 78 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this election petition is dismissed. Consequently i. a. i is allowed. Since the election petition is disposed of before the commencement of the trial, each party ' directed to bear its own costs. --- *** --- .